We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – an Epoch Defining Event The only way that the proponents of the ‘liberal’ international order are able to process such criticism is to cast it as an expression of manifestly unreasonable character flaws. Ironically, then, angry Eurocrat Guy Verhofstadt took to X to proclaim that “America, as a liberal empire, is no more”, and that the “new era of US governance” is an “oligarchy”, “where billionaire members of Mar-a-Lago decide US policy”. But talk is cheap. Trump is obnoxious to the “liberal” order imagined by Verhofstadt, not because his administration is an “oligarchy”, but because it is a democratic departure from the green oligarchies that dominate in Europe and were installed without due process under the largesse of Green Blob billionaires.
– Ben Pile
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Penetrating insights are to be expected from Ben Pile, a hero, imho, of those of us who are appalled at the lunacy, and impact, of the CO2 alarmists. He is a lucid analyst of political movements.
Verhofstadts’ statements are a classic case of projection as you are likely to find and can be used as a dictionary definition of the concept.
All governments are oligarchies — even “anarcho-capitalist” non-governments such as Viking Iceland.
Some of the differences between oligarchies are:
* the relative power of the oligarchs;
* the selfishness (or sense of duty) of the oligarchs;
* the conceit (or humbleness) of the oligarchs;
* the level of insanity of the oligarchs.
It should be obvious what is best for us, the people, in each of these spectra.
Phil B is correct – Guy Verhofstadt represents an Oligarchy, indeed the rules of the European Union are designed to PREVENT the people having control. And the international establishment is intended to work the same way – lots of talk of democracy whilst, in reality, utterly crushing democracy.
President Trump won both the Electoral College and the Popular Vote (the Dems did their normal thing of producing lots of fake votes in the big cities – but were just overwhelmed by the Republican Elephant, or tidal wave, of votes from outside these cities, there is even a 19th century cartoon of this – the conflict with corrupt Democrat Big City bosses, and their fake votes, goes back a long way – in Local Government the term “Curley Effect” is actually named after the early 1900s Democrat Mayor of Boston, Mayor Curley).
President Trump is trying to do the things he promised the American people he would do – the policies they voted for, for example securing the border, and ending DEI.
This is called Democracy not Oligarchy.
As for “liberal” – Guy Verhofstadt does not define what he means by “liberal”.
He appears to mean censorship (the crushing of Freedom of Speech by “Hate Speech” laws), “Gun Control£”, international (world) “governance” by unelected officials and Partner Corporations. With ordinary people basically the serfs of this international Oligarchy.
This definition of “liberal” would have utterly astonished real liberals such as John Bright and Gladstone (as it is, basically, the opposite of what they believed in), indeed even socialists such as George Orwell (Eric Blair) would be astonished by this definition of the word “liberal” – as, to Orwell, the sign of liberty was “the rifle on the wall of the cottage of the ordinary working man” – something that almost all British people would have agreed with when George Orwell was growing up.
Guy Verhofstadt is engaging in fairly high-voltage levels of projection. It’s not as if the European Union is known for its sensitivities around due process, democratic accountability, fondness for free speech, and all the rest of it. What he dislikes in this case is Trump’s blunt rejection of a number of pieces of New Clerisy wisdom on DEI, global warming alarmism, unfettered migration, victim-blaming mindsets when it comes to foreign affairs, etc etc. That does not mean that there aren’t legitimate criticisms of Trump, such as his foolish embrace of tariffs, but by and large, the European political establishment is, I suspect, almost envious of Mr Trump’s powers.
It may well be that Mr Trump will overreach, and some of his measures could backfire, with tariffs being a notable example. Then again, the EU has hardly been a beacon of open markets and Cobdenite free trade in recent decades.
Yes Johnathan Pearce – Guy Verhofstadt is engaged in “Projection” it is he, Mr Verhofstadt, who pushes Oligarchy – and it is President Trump who is supporting Democracy.
In a Direct Democracy, such as Appenzell Innerrhoden, (a Direct Democracy for many hundreds of years) the people assembly and vote for the policies they want. In a Representative Democracy the people get to vote for representatives whose policies the people approve of.
That is what President Trump is trying to do – he won the election (both the Electoral Vote and the Popular Vote) and he is trying to make the changes, such as an end to high “Green” energy prices, an end to “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” policies, and an end to mass illegal immigration, that the people voted for – the people voted for Donald J. Trump to make these changes and that is what he is trying to do.
It does not work that way in the European Union – and, tragically, it does not work that way in the United Kingdom either – where, for example, the people keep demanding an end to mass immigration, yet they get more and more mass immigration – deliberately encouraged by the permanent government.
In news from Germany: Adolf Hitler, responding to Churchill’s take over of the British Government, lamented: “The Englanders will regret giving unfettered power to this aristocratic tyrant”.
Marco Rubio does a great job summing up the damage done by the fantasists like Verhofstadt who promoted The End of History and one-world post-nationalism:
https://x.com/njhochman/status/1879589657597411418
Why is it only ever an oligarchy when we win?
Fraser Orr – well Mr Hitler was a bit odd.
Ben David – yes indeed.
bobby b – exactly.
By “democracy” Verhofstadt means “legitimate government”, which in his view is oligarchy. And by “oligarchy” he means “illegitimate government”, which in his view is democracy. A technocrat who thinks himself egalitarian must sever all the links between the dictionary definitions of “democracy” and “oligarchy” and their use in political rhetoric; otherwise he’d have to take notice of the obvious contradiction, and suffer some cognitive dissonance.
So Trump is an “oligarch” because he came to power on the strength of a popular vote, and Verhofstadt is a “democrat” because he rejects the idea that popular votes should determine policy against the advice of properly educated men like himself. Black is white, up is down, night is day. It’s very simple and obvious.
Michael Brazier – correct Sir.
Because we reject oligarchy as a matter of principle, bobby.
Because (and I’m aware that Elon is looked on favourably here, bizarrely enough), it might not have been Elon. It might have been Bill Gates, or Mark Zuckerberg, or “pick a very rich person that you don’t agree with but who has huge influence”.
————–
In a similar way that we reject “democracy” vs “freedom” (as in majority votes that bind the “loser” to a life that they don’t agree with), we as a point of principle reject oligarchies, as we know that no matter whilst we might agree with that particular person in the specific instance, that can change tomorrow.
There’s a bunch of pillars of libertarianism that are being *enourmously* lost, and one of those is to thoroughly remove any possibility of people like Elon Musk having any say whatsoever.
(I mean, unless you agree with his “woke mind virus” shite, in which case you’ve lost any claim to being libertarian anyway)
But, I’m not defending oligarchs.
And there’s my point. It WAS Zuckerberg and Gates and Soros and Wyss who were the oligarchs before Musk. Look at what they spent in pursuit of progressive rule. Look at how much they affected the 2020 election. Look at how they have shaped – and multiplied – American crime.
My point is – only NOW do they cry “oligarchy!”
I mean, the right were crying “oligarchy!” at the time.
Meh, I guess it’s just that same old thing; it’s fine when it’s your team doing it, and bad when it’s the other team (it’s the same over here; the die-hard Labour voters are tying themselves up in knots to excuse some of the crap that Starmer’s lot have been coming out with)
The whole thing’s depressing. Largely why I don’t involve myself in electorial politics at all, to be honest.
Both Donald John Trump and Elon Musk WERE members of the Oligarchy.
DJT was part of the New York set that included the Clintons – which is why a certain Paul Marks was so wary of him in 2016 – I assumed he was a supporter of the Corporate State I-was-wrong. It appears that he was conning the Dems for years – in order to get the green light for his business projects. In a society where the government has a stranglehold on everything – it is much easier to get along if you support the ruling ideology, or pretend to support it.
Elon Musk was far more senior in the Oligarchy than DJT was – a regular of Davos and so on.
Till his son was sexually mutilated.
And till he understood that the international oligarchy wished to wipe out all dissent – even from their own members.
Being a billionaire gives someone no right to dissent – not according the international establishment.
Mr Musk came to understand that his own personal freedom depends on the freedom of other people.
Hence his answer to Bob Iger at Davos – in response to demands that Twitter carry on censorship and persecution.
“Go fuck yourself Bob – I hope that is clear”.
Bob Iger was not really who those words were addressed to – after all Mr Iger is just an errand boy, a very well paid errand boy, but still an errand boy.
The words were addressed to the international establishment, the Corporate State establishment, in general.
You uncovered your swastika armband with that one. Possibly unintentionally, probably not.
Twitter has *demonstrably* carried out a campaign of censorship and persecution since Musk took over, it’s just that you find it acceptable and cause for celebration because Musk is censoring, persecuting, cancelling and deleting accounts that you don’t agree with.
Twitter – provably and undeniably, because the code has been leaked, it is out there and has been published – pushed pro-Republican tweets to the forefront of the algorithm, for those that use “For you” on their feed. Again, this is okay with you and I get that, because you don’t *actually* care about freedom or liberty (hence the previous quoted comment), you have a very narrow view of liberty which is *exclusionary*, not inclusive. You believe that the world should be split – by nature – into those who should rule, and those who should accept that they should subject to being ruled, by nature of their birth, and when they don’t include you in the “should rule” category, you have stupidly allowed yourself to be goaded into fighting the others who aren’t ruled, instead of the people who are telling you who should be ruled.
So don’t give me this utter nonsense about “Mr Musk came to understand that his own personal freedom depends on the freedom of other people.”, that’s a flat-out lie. That’s either gullibility or complicity on your part – I’m not sure which is worse – but either way it’s factually incorrect.
As for the “Mr” in “Mr Musk”, for someone who often refers to “the boot stamping on a human face”, it’s somewhat amusing, but never unsurprising, to see you lick it.
Paul’s comment is very much worth discussing. (Unlike neonsnake’s.)
I am in broad agreement, but i think that at least one clarification is needed.
First of all, we must clarify the concept of ‘oligarchy’. I claim that, to most people, ‘the oligarchy’ means the ruling class: the minority of people who hold the majority of political power. (Implying a Pareto distribution of power.) In THIS sense, both Trump and Musk are STILL part of the oligarchy. Especially now, although whether they would still be if Trump lost the election, is anybody’s guess.
But i suspect that what Paul meant by ‘the oligarchy’ is the Establishment, i.e. the faction/clique within the ruling class which holds most of the power. In THIS sense, it is not yet clear whether Trump and Musk have become the new oligarchs; but, even if they did, they have nowhere as much unchecked power as the Woke Establishment had just a few weeks ago.
— All countries have a ruling class (a Pareto distribution of political power), but not all countries have an Establishment; because it is possible to have a balance of power between factions of the ruling class. (Hopefully, not degenerating into civil war.)
Also, some countries have decent Establishments and some countries have corrupt Establishments. (But no Establishment is usually better than a decent Establishment.)